5 dead in Tanjong Pagar speeding accident

[Mkl22]

1 minute ago, mikk123 said:

if one of them survived and do you think he would still sue? when it comes to money, haha 

sue... got wife sue husband insurer before also, i think it that case the husband wasnt drinking so likely there will be a payout

[Mkl22]

1 minute ago, inlinesix said:

AXA will not waste money to go after his estate. 

what makes you say so...

[inlinesix]

Just now, Mkl22 said:

what makes you say so...

AXA goes after Ma Chi estate as Ma Chi has Money.

Bank also likely has to write off outstanding loan for his M4

[Beehive3783]

Would a young punk have 1.7 million for AXA to go after? Very very unlikely  

[Jman888]

1 hour ago, Watwheels said:

I thought all of them got together to drink and then took turns to drive the car?

The driver drink alone while the friends watch him drink? I highly doubt it.

Why the families sue the driver's mother for compensation? All of them are guilty of drink driving.

Just let the matter rest.

like russian roulette 

[Arogab]

Wow, I thot it is all over and case close. there are still so many aftermath to settle wow. I wonder the families will suffer how many years and if there will be sufferings after life or future life 

[Dp26]

Must had caught wind that maybe got estate available that’s why. 
 

“Better to do” families sometimes buy lots of insurance for their family members 

 

and since driver no longer a kid so maybe already owned the policies themselves and therefore has estate available 

 

or sometimes have joint account with father mother or even good sum of monies parked in their accounts for many other purposes 

 

speculation only of cos 

[Shibadog]

8 hours ago, Hamburger said:

RIP to all deceased.

And no one pointed a gun at their head to board the M series car.

the car model has little to do with it. 

don't make it sound like sour grapes

[Hamburger]

2 hours ago, Shibadog said:

the car model has little to do with it. 

don't make it sound like sour grape

Just making reference to a particular case and not some Ferrari case. 

no need to be so edgy. 

 

[Windwaver]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/tanjong-pagar-crash-mother-of-deceased-driver-to-fight-lawsuits-filed-against-her-son-s-estate

Tanjong Pagar crash: Mother of deceased driver to fight lawsuits filed against her son’s estate

SINGAPORE - The mother of the driver who died in the Tanjong Pagar crash which killed four other passengers in 2021 is fighting lawsuits filed against her son’s estate by the families of three of the passengers.

Madam Chan Ngerng Pheng’s 29-year-old son, Mr Jonathan Long Junwei, was driving the white BMW M4 which crashed into a shophouse in Tanjong Pagar Road before bursting into flames.

Madam Chan, 58, is denying all allegations and claims by the families of the three passengers – Mr Eugene Yap Zheng Min, Mr Teo Qi Xiang and Mr Gary Wong Hong Chieh.

In total, they are seeking to claim about $1.7 million from the estate of Mr Long.

The family of the fourth passenger – Mr Elvin Tan Yong Hao, 28 – had intimated a claim of about $477,000, but there has been no legal proceeding to date.

The crash vehicle’s insurer AXA Singapore had repudiated liability under the policy for any claims arising out of the accident in a Nov 4 letter to Madam Chan.

This was after the coroner’s inquiry in June showed that Mr Long had been driving under the influence of alcohol.

In their statement of claims filed in November, relatives of Mr Yap, Mr Teo and Mr Wong accused Mr Long of driving “in such a way that he lost control” of the car before the accident on Feb 13, 2021.

They alleged that the crash was caused solely or contributed by the negligence of Mr Long.

In her defence filed on Dec 5, Madam Chan, who is the administrator of her son’s estate, denied all allegations and claims.

She said the deaths of the claimants were contributed by their own negligence in travelling as a passenger in the car driven by her son, when they knew or ought to have known that her son had been drinking alcoholic drinks in such quantities and to such an extent as to render him unfit to drive the car carefully or safely.

Madam Chan denied that Mr Long owed Mr Yap, 29, Mr Teo, 26 and Mr Wong, 29, a duty of care as all three passengers had willingly engaged in the joint illegal activity, which she said in defence papers involved the contest of speed amongst the drivers of the car and under the influence of alcohol.

Madam Chan, who is represented by lawyer Nigel Brian Bogaars of Bogaars and Din, said in defence of her son’s estate that the deceased passengers had caused and or encouraged Mr Long to take them for a ride in his car, and had also failed to take any adequate precautions for their safety in the circumstances.

She also denied liability on the principle of “ex turpi causa non oritur actio” , which means the claimants cannot pursue legal damages arising from the deceased passenger’s unlawful and anti-social course of conduct.

Hours before the accident, the five deceased, together with five other friends, had gathered at another friend’s home in Ang Mo Kio to celebrate Chinese New Year. All of them drank alcohol.

At around 3am on Feb 13, 2021, the group went to a Korean restaurant at Tanjong Pagar owned by one Mr Park Se Jin, where they continued to drink alcohol heavily for about two hours.

Around 5am, the group went out of the restaurant to send off one of the friends, who was catching a taxi home.

While they were outside the restaurant, Mr Yap asked Mr Long to let him and another friend Phoo Yi Lin test drive his newly purchased car.

Mr Yap, Ms Phoo and Mr Park then took turns to drive the car at high speed around a circuit along Tanjong Pagar Road. They also took turns sitting in the car as passengers.

Mr Long, who was the fourth driver, had a blood alcohol reading of 86mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. This exceeded the legal limit of 80mg per 100ml.

Mr Yap, Mr Teo, whose blood alcohol reading was 162mg, Mr Tan (128mg) and Mr Wong (111mg) joined him in the car, even though the car had designated seats for the driver and only three passengers. Mr Long was speeding along Tanjong Pagar Road when the car skidded, mounted a kerb and collided into a pillar at an estimated speed of between 87kmh and 99kmh, resulting in the fatal crash.

The State Coroner had ruled the five deaths a traffic-related misadventure.

It appeared that Mr Long had intended to show the others how fast the car could be driven, and that there was an element of bravado to it, State Coroner Adam Nakhod said during the coroner’s inquiry in August.

He added that there was no evidence that Mr Long had cajoled the others to get into his car and they appeared to have got in of their own volition.

The mother of Mr Yap, who was the front passenger, is seeking about $855,000 for loss of financial contributions from her son to the family.

In addition to the dependency claims for her and her husband, she is also seeking dependency claims on behalf of Mr Yap’s younger brother Edmund.

Other claims include funeral expenses and a damaged Rolex watch valued at about $23,656, which was worn by Mr Yap at the time of the accident.

Mr Teo’s mother is seeking about $435,000, while Mr Wong’s next-of-kin is seeking close to $400,000 including a lump sum of $24,000 for care and custody of Mr Wong’s dog.

Mr Teo and Mr Wong’s claims, which were initially filed in the High Court, have been transferred to the district court. The three claimants are represented by Goh Choon Wah of Characterist LLC.

Madam Chan has denied each and every allegation in the statement of claims filed by relatives of the three passengers.

Under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960, AXA is still obliged to pay the claimants following a judgment. The insurer could then seek to recover the sums from the estate of the driver.

[macrosszero]

Claim for loss of support to mother is understandable, claim for loss of support to brother is arguable, but claim $24,000 to support his dog…… 😳 

[Hamburger]

No cat?? Aiyo....

[jcmm]

As if the last driver begged all to take a ride....

All youngsters had a few drinks, wanted excitement, took turn on Russian roulette with Yama, in the end wish granted, met an accident and now pointing finger, "u pulled the last trigger."

Edited December 6, 2022 by jcmm

[badlammy]

小强！！！

[Maxus-MIFA9]

On 12/6/2022 at 7:56 PM, Macrosszero said:

Claim for loss of support to mother is understandable, claim for loss of support to brother is arguable, but claim $24,000 to support his dog…… 😳 

"Special Dog" ..... 

[Maxus-MIFA9]

Can claim for dog, brother and none of the 3 claimants make claim for their son's girlfriends or boyfriend who are broken heart. 

[Jamesc]

Love ones gone or money more important?

I have to be honest.

If my MIL gone for good.

Nothing can replace her

but I will feel a lot better with 1.7 million.

YMMV

Your MIL might vary.

[Rickster]

On 12/6/2022 at 7:56 PM, Macrosszero said:

Claim for loss of support to mother is understandable, claim for loss of support to brother is arguable, but claim $24,000 to support his dog…… 😳 

Could it be that is something that their lawyers advised them to do it? Not sure if the lawyer draws a commission out of it.